Chamber and committees

I think that that is part of the balance in trying to achieve the objectives of the bill and balance the interests of those who are involved. I thought very carefully, and for a long period, about public events—if that is what we are talking about specifically—still being allowed in firework control zones.

When I came to the chamber at stage 1, I said to members that there were a couple of areas about which I genuinely wanted to hear what they thought. One of those areas was exemptions for private companies and public displays. I listened carefully to what members said to me about that, and I have also listened to what stakeholders have said. I have thought about the matter carefully, and I think that it is a fine balance.

Obviously, it is up to members to decide whether I got that to the right point in the end, but I genuinely felt that public displays are not where the issue lies. I think that, by preventing public displays, we would not be achieving the right balance. That is why I came to that decision.

I share Jamie Greene’s views on the importance of firework safety. We debated this subject during stage 2 when he lodged a similar amendment. Much of what is included in amendment 85 reflects what was proposed in the British Fireworks Association’s 10-point plan. I have said on a number of occasions that I welcome much of the plan and the good progress that is being made in a number of the areas that it highlights.

Jamie Greene stated during stage 2 that he did not want this work to be left to policy and future Governments and that he preferred to have it committed into law in the bill. However, through my actions, I have already made very clear my strong commitment to firework safety, and I believe that it is not necessary or appropriate to use the bill to write into legislation already-stated policy commitments that have followed on from the already-published fireworks action plan of 2019.

I do not agree with the member. His amendment relates to existing legislation, while many of the provisions in the bill are new, so I cannot agree with him on that point.

I not only believe that the maximum penalties that are set out in the bill are proportionate and appropriate. I also believe that the applicable levels of penalty in other fireworks legislation are proportionate and appropriate. We are not aware of any specific compelling evidence that higher maximum penalties are necessary to deal with the offending behaviour in question.

During the evidence sessions at stage 1, representatives from the firework industry highlighted the fact that, in their view, maximum sentences are not routinely handed down. I may be pre-empting an intervention from Mr Findlay by saying that he might point to the lack of option in the 1875 act for a custodial sentence. However, the offences under that act are applicable throughout all UK jurisdictions. If a penalty of imprisonment were to be made available in Scotland only, that would make penalties across the UK inconsistent.

I will give way if Mr Findlay wishes to come back in.

Jamie Greene will understand that that is an attempt to balance all the different relevant interests. The careful consideration that the matter was given by the review group is represented, for the most part, in its recommendations and the provisions that we now have in the bill.

Amendments 80 and 81 would also mean that fireworks would be available for purchase for a number of days before their use would be permitted. I am concerned that that could lead to issues around stockpiling. In the bill, the days on which it is permitted for fireworks to be used is deliberately extended slightly beyond when fireworks can be supplied. That is in order to avoid a situation in which people buy fireworks towards the end of the supply period but are not able to use them when they intend to—for example, because of poor weather.

That element of the bill will minimise the possibility of individuals having to store fireworks from the last day of one permitted use period to the beginning of the next, which could lead to safety concerns about storage of fireworks in domestic premises.

Although the group includes a substantial number of amendments, they seek to achieve one significant effect: to remove the licensing system from the bill. Ms Clark lodged an amendment at stage 2 to start a debate on whether the licensing system should be removed, and I understand that the amendments in this group have been lodged to seek to progress that point.

As I stated during stage 2 proceedings, I consider amendments to remove the licensing system to be a wholly disproportionate step to take. The licensing system is based on extensive consultation and engagement, which Mr MacGregor has just pointed out. That includes the 2021 public consultation, which demonstrated significant support among respondents for a firework licensing system, with 84 per cent agreeing that it should be introduced.

During stage 1, the committee heard from a range of stakeholders who were supportive of the range of measures in the bill, including the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which stated that

“The licensing element encourages people to engage in some training in how to use fireworks, as well as making it slightly more challenging to buy fireworks and putting some control around that process.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 16 March 2022; c 6.]

I understand that members have expressed concerns about the level of detail that is in the bill and what will be set out in future regulations. Following stage 1, I shared a licence user journey with the committee, which set out the practical steps that a person must follow in order to apply for a licence. All that detail is already included in the bill, and I hope that that provided members with the reassurance that the fundamental principles and the core functions of the system are included in the bill. The licence user journey also pointed to the four areas in which regulations are required for implementation of the system.

Therefore, as I have previously stated, I believe that the most appropriate approach to take to operational details is to set them out in regulations. Those regulations will be subject to a consultation requirement, and the public and stakeholders will have the opportunity to share their views on proposals.

I lodged amendments at stage 2 to accept the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommendations and require certain regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure, which would give the Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise those regulations further. That relates to the broad regulation-making power at section 18, which means that, where regulations might go beyond any type of administrative detail, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I consider that this group of amendments and the attempt to remove the licensing system are excessive. That approach actively works against the results of the consultation and the engagement that has contributed towards the development of the system. I therefore ask Ms Clark not to press the amendments, and if she is minded to do so, I ask members not to support them.

There was, understandably, much debate about the licence fee during stages 1 and 2. I turn first to Pauline McNeill’s amendment 70. It seeks to amend the bill to remove the requirement that

“the Scottish Ministers ... must have regard to the reasonable”

running costs of the licensing system. When “setting the fees”; only a “nominal fee” could be charged or the fee would be remitted entirely.

I know that Pauline McNeill raised concerns at stage 2 about system running costs and how they could impact on the licence fee that is set. Although cost recovery will be a key determinant of the fee level—that is in line with the standard approach for all such fees—a proportionate fee should generally be chargeable in order to ensure that applications are made with due consideration of the responsibilities that are involved in holding a fireworks licence.

I will address the question that Pauline McNeill asked me during her speech. She asked me about legal enforcement or legal administration—I think that that was the term that she used. I confirm that it is not the intention that the fees will cover elements of enforcement, but are for costs of administration only.

Amendment 68 seeks to require a fireworks licence to be presented specifically

“at the point of purchase”

either online or in person. That is unworkable, as the bill does not and cannot regulate behaviour outside of Scotland.

Section 5 of the bill ensures that suppliers will take “reasonable steps” to establish that they are not supplying fireworks to an unlicensed person. That is not confined just to the point of sale, but applies to every part of the process of supply. Therefore, for transactions with retailers outwith Scotland—which was the example that the member gave—it is the delivery company that will be subject to the requirements of section 5.

For example, if fireworks are purchased online from a European website and the delivery address is in Scotland, the physical handing over or delivery of the goods is part of the supply of fireworks. It is that part of the process where enforcement action in Scotland for online sales can be focused. It is anticipated that that will work in a similar way to the delivery of age-restricted products, where the person who is delivering the products must satisfy themselves that the recipient is of a permitted age to receive the delivery.

I believe that amendment 68 is not feasible and I will not support it.

Amendment 69 seeks to provide examples of what constitute “reasonable steps” to determine whether a person has a firework licence by setting out that that

“includes viewing and retaining a copy of the person’s firework licence.”

Although I sympathise with the intention behind the amendments, I do not think that it is right to provide such examples. We do not want to cause unintended consequences or narrowing of the scope of the defence. I believe that we had a detailed exchange on that at stage 2. We should leave it to the police, the prosecutors and the courts to determine, in each individual case, whether the evidence supports that defence applying to a particular supplier.

For that reason, I ask Mr Greene not to press his amendment.

Will the member take an intervention?

An independent review of legal aid, which was published in 2018, found that Scotland had a generous legal aid system by international standards, and that it had wide scope and no cash limit. Despite significant financial pressures, Scotland is one of the leading jurisdictions in Europe for its legal aid system in terms of scope, eligibility and costs: 75 per cent of people are financially eligible for some form of civil legal aid assistance, which contrasts with England and Wales, where only 25 per cent of people are eligible for that assistance. In England and Wales, there have been cuts to scope that have left many areas of civil law, such as family, housing and immigration, largely out of scope.

The legal aid fund is not frozen. The legal aid budget in Scotland is demand led and all those who meet the eligibility criteria will have access to legal aid. We will continue to work with justice organisations to develop and co-ordinate their delivery plans in response to the high-level spending review allocations, including public bodies such as the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

In this financial year, we have increased the legal aid budget by £13.9 million, which is an increase of 10 per cent, and we have also made an investment of £1 million over two years in the future of the legal profession. We are working in partnership with the Law Society of Scotland to deliver a new legal aid traineeship scheme, which is the first of its kind in Scotland.